Bridleways Association Objection Letter

The attached letter has been sent into the Councils on behalf of the Bridleways Association. We encourage all our members to write into both Rochdale and Rossendale Planning Departments to express their own views regarding the windfarm (good or bad). This is your opportunity to get your views known. The addresses to write to are

We are
writing on behalf of the members of Rochdale Bury Bridleways Association (97
members) to object to the proposed development by Coronation Power to erect 12
wind turbines on either side of Rooley Moor Road, Rochdale and to the proposal
to use Rooley Moor Road as an access route to their construction site.

We have outlined our concerns below.

·The
Mary Towneley Loop, a 47 mile National Trail and local tourist attraction, and
the Sport England Lottery Award used to construct, it will be compromised.

·The
use of Rooley Moor Road as an access road for construction traffic raises
serious safety issues for equestrian users of the common land of the moor and
its bridleways.

·The
inadequate separation distances of the turbines from the bridleway create
further threats to the safety of equestrians using the Mary Towneley Loop.

·The
income of local equestrian tourist facilities associated with the Mary Towneley
Loop will be put at risk.

·The
jobs of people who care for horses at the local livery yards will be put at
risk.

·The
proposed treatment of the surface of Rooley Moor Road and the construction of
the Borrow Pits so close to the bridleways will adversely affect horses being
ridden along Rooley Moor Road.

·The
proposed alternative bridleway offered to keep horses away from the
construction traffic on Rooley Moor Road is not fit for purpose.

We also consider that observations and suggestions concerning horses and
wind turbines made in the documents in the Environmental Statement are
questionable and in some instances dangerous.

1

We would now like to expand on these points.

1.
The Mary Towneley Loop

Rooley Moor
Road is part of the Mary Towneley Loop. The Mary Towneley Loop is a 47
mile circular section of the Pennine Bridleway National Trail. It dips in and
out of Lancashire and Yorkshire on the outskirts of Rossendale, Calderdale,
Burnley and Rochdale. If the Rooley Moor Road section is developed as a wind
farm then it will sever the whole Loop and ruin what is a fantastic, safe
off-road route. It takes on average 3 days to complete the Loop on horseback, to
enjoy the spectacular scenery, peace and quiet and the hospitality of local
businesses offering Bed and Breakfast for both horse and rider. “Looping the Loop” is an aim of many horse
riders. The Mary Towneley Loop is not an
insignificant bridleway. It is as important to the Happy Hackers of the
equestrian world as The Derby and The Grand National are to the racing
fraternity. People have come from all over the UK to ride The Mary Towneley
Loop, from Ireland, Wales and Scotland as well as areas such as Liverpool,
Manchester, Leeds and York. Rider’s ages range from 6 to 60+ years and some
people have ridden the Loop several times, one 6 times. Matt Baker from the
BBC’s Countryfile was broadcast riding part of the Mary Towneley Loop in
February 2011. Even Princess Anne has
ridden part of the Loop, in 2000 before it was officially opened.

2. Effects
of Rooley Moor Road used as an access road

Rooley Moor Road is enjoyed by local people and there are
many livery yards in the area catering for a large horse population. Many
farmers have diversified in order to accommodate this and the livery yards are
all well established. This proposed development would have a massive impact
because everything needed for it would have to be brought up Rooley Moor Road
and it would take 12 to 18 months to construct the wind farm. Most of the
livery yards are accessed using Rooley Moor Road and people would not want to
compete with heavy machinery and plant and would feel compelled to seek safer
livery yards elsewhere. The local economy is at risk as the livery yards are in
danger of losing their clients and the jobs of those who care for the horses
are put at risk. The Council should be
protecting the jobs and livelihoods of the people in its area. No one would want to risk the safety of horse
and rider on what would become a construction site and there is no alternative
safe route from Waterfoot to Catley Lane
Head because of the boggy nature of the terrain on Scout Moor and Rooley Moor. There has been an incident this
summer where a rider has gone off track and the horse became stuck in the bog. In the document produced by the British Horse
Society (BHS) entitled “Advice on Wind Turbines and Horses – Guidance for
Planners and Developers”, on page 7 it says that access for construction
purposes should avoid bridleways or byways as it is incompatible with
equestrian use and routes should not be closed to equestrians so as to
facilitate construction. Rooley Moor Road is a public bridleway and should be kept
open and safe for everyone in all
user groups at all times.

2

3.
Inadequate separation distances

(i) BHS guidelines

There is also the
problem of the turbines themselves, 8 of which will be closer to the bridleway
than the separation distance recommended by the BHS which states a separation
distance of 200m or three times the overall height (whichever is greater) should be the target distance from all routes
which are used by equestrians, including roads .It should be noted that a separation distance of 200m was
recommended in the days when the turbines were much smaller than they are now.
For todays’ giants of 125m the separation distance needs to be far greater. We
must also bear in mind that turbines are failing on other wind farms. As the
proposed turbines are so close to the bridleway the public will be put at risk
if one falls, catches fire or a rotor blade breaks, as has happened to turbines
in this area, and this is unacceptable. In Coronation Power’s plans the height
of each turbine is given as 125m so the separation distance should be 375m
according to the British Horse Society guidelines.

(ii) Contradictory
statements

(a) In Coronation Power’s Scoping Report it
is stated that

“Consideration will be given to accommodating the
recommended separation distances between users of the Bridleway and the
proposed turbine locations”.

Turbines T2, T3, T5, T6 ,T7, T8,T11 and T12 have a
separation distance of between 174m and
237m from the bridleway whilst T10 is 305m from the bridleway. Only 3 turbines
in the proposed development, T1, T4 and T9 are acknowledging the BHS
recommendations. It is therefore quite clear that the British Horse Society
guidelines have not been followed.

(b) In
the Pre-application Consultation Report, Table 1-Scoping Opinion, Natural
England comment on the need to consider the sensitivity of horses to turbines
and then later about the BHS guidelines of suitable separation distances. In
reply Coronation Power make contradictory
statements replying to the first comment that guidelines issued by the BHS in
relation to horses and wind turbines have been followed and then saying in
response to the second comment it has not been possible to achieve 3x turbine
height.

(iii) Combined development

Appendix II shows the positions of the proposed turbines
from the development by Peel Holdings /United Utilities and is included to
demonstrate how the two developments together will have a massive impact on The
Mary Towneley Loop. The riders will face a significant distance of unremitting turbines.
Near Cowpe Moss there is a distance of 1500m of track (measured from Peel
Holdings map) with turbines from the Peel Holdings development too close to the
bridleway. Further south (measured from both Peel Holdings‘ and Coronation
Power’s maps) 2000m of turbines too
close to the bridleway from both the
Peel Holdings and the Coronation Power developments together. This makes a
total of 3500m of turbines for riders to negotiate, an unacceptable distance.

3

(iv) Environmental Statement- Appendix 14.1

In this document David Stewart Associates offer some
questionable arguments in order to justify inadequate separation distances.

(a) It is suggested that the vast majority of
riders using Rooley Moor Road will be locals whose horses will get used to the
turbines. Not many riders from out of the area will be tackling the 330km
Pennine Bridleway trail and they will be mounted on experienced horses. He
seems not to realise that this section of the bridleway is also a part of the
47 mile Mary Towneley Loop. There are likely to be more riders from out of the
area, many of which will be ordinary riders accepting the challenge of the Loop
on less experienced horses.

(b) It is stated that there is no evidence that
the turbines will prevent riders completing this section of the Mary Towneley
Loop. In the letters of objection arriving at the Council Offices the evidence
is there.

(c) It is suggested
that as the moor is common land riders can go off the marked lines of the
bridleway and onto the moor to bypass turbines that are too close. Do so at
your peril in that boggy terrain!

(d) There is a
misconception that a slow-moving rotor on a fully visible turbine will not be
intimidating to horses. From a distance that may well be true, but as the horse
approaches nearer to the turbine, if it is that way inclined, it will refuse to
go forward or spin round and run.

(v) The definite threat to equines.

Although the BHS guidelines are not statutory, planning
decisions concerning wind farm developments have been made based on them. The
BHS, who have many years’ worth of experience with horses between them, have a
good reason to recommend them. Natural
England have commented that although
there is a lack of research into the issue of the safety of horse riders in the
vicinity of wind turbines the minimum intervening distances between turbines
and bridleways recommended by the BHS should be respected. There is no doubt at all that the turbines do pose a threat to
the equestrian community and their rights to use a public highway in safety
must be protected.

4. Factors
affecting horses

The turbines being
so close to the bridleway creates a visual and noise problem for the horses
being ridden along the Mary Towneley Loop. There are several features of this
development that could cause problems to horses.

(i) Unusual sounds,
such as the whoosh of the rotating blade, are disturbing to horses, as their
hearing is very sensitive and if they cannot identify the source of the sound,
particularly from overhead, they panic and flight mode takes over.

4

(ii) In the morning
the shadow effect from turbines 3, 6, 11 and 12 will adversely affect the
Bridleway and later in the day the shadow effect from turbines 2, 5, 7 and 8
will be a problem. The shadow effect might extend to up to 10 times turbine
height in the morning towards the west of Rooley Moor Road and in the evening
towards the east of Rooley Moor Road.

(iii) Turbines sited
east and west of a north/south route, the situation proposed, is the worst
scenario for incidence of shadow cast at any time of the day.

(iv) The sight of the
descending rotor itself will be perceived as a threat, again from overhead.

(v) The fact that where
Rooley Moor Road crosses the Coronation Power site the turbines are arranged on both sides of the bridleway
creating a corridor.

(vi) There are
several turbines to pass through.

5 Financial Aspects and Tourism

(i) Sport England Funding

The Mary Towneley Loop was created using a major part of a
£1.8 million award from Sport England Lottery Funding. (See Appendix I) Sport England has been informed of the
development and they are willing to make a comment on the effects of the wind
farm extension on their investment in this bridleway if the planning
authorities contact them. The Mary Towneley Loop was completed in 2002 and
allows horse riders and other members of the public to enjoy our ancient
highways and bridleways both now and in the future.

As has been described in sections 2 and 3, because of the
close proximity of some of the proposed wind turbines to the bridleway and the proposed use of Rooley Moor Road as an
access road to the construction site, it will no longer be safely useable. This
route has been used since the days of the Packhorse as a route between
Waterfoot and Rochdale and there is no safe
alternative. Many prospective visitors will be deterred from using the Mary
Towneley Loop because of safety issues. If the bridleway cannot be used safely
this means that the public funding for this project will have been compromised.

(ii) Effects on B&B businesses

Those businesses which rely on visitors using their B&B
facilities will lose revenue. Over the
last 10 years on average 150 horse riders per season (May to September) have
ridden the Loop and taken advantage of the B&B facilities for both horse
and rider. This has resulted in an
annual income of £10K for each business. This is a substantial proportion of
their income for these small farm businesses.

5

(iii) Effects on tourism

Thus the development will impact
tourism in the area by deterring riders from using the Mary Towneley Loop, an
existing tourist attraction and part of an active sports industry, because of
the actual and perceived threat to their safety by the closeness of the
turbines to the bridleway. It is difficult, therefore, to see how Coronation
Power have complied with Policy LT/2 in the Rochdale UDP*. In the
National Planning Policy Framework, Communities and Local Government ,section
3, paragraph 28 it says that planning should support “sustainable
rural tourism and leisure development that benefits businesses in rural areas,
communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside.”

6. The
right to ride safely on a public bridleway

(i) Surveys and evidence

In 2012 the BHS produced the results of a limited survey
into the experiences of horse riders near wind turbines. It found that 20% of
riders consulted had experienced difficulties with their horses in the vicinity
of wind turbines. This figure will not include those riders who will not take
their horses near a wind turbine for fear of their horse’s response and will
therefore not be included in the statistics. As there has been no formal scientific
study into the reactions of horses to wind turbines, all evidence produced,
whether showing horses can co-exist with turbines or that they have adverse
reactions to turbines, must be anecdotal and carry equal weight. However,
because an adverse reaction by a horse to a turbine could result in the death
or injury of the rider such examples should be taken more seriously.

(ii)
The right to ride safely

All riders, whether or not their horses
tolerate wind turbines, have a right to ride along a public bridleway and those
whose horses have adverse reactions to wind turbines should not be
discriminated against by the presence of wind turbines too close to the
bridleway, especially where there is no alternative route as is the case with
Rooley Moor Road. The Mary Towneley Loop should be no more hazardous than any
other bridleway in the area. The presence of a wind turbine will deny access to
some riders who will then be forced to ride on the roads. Local riders avoid
riding near the wind turbines that are already on the moor out of concern for
their safety. We must protect bridleways so that riders have access to safe
off-road routes.The death or injury of one rider, because their horse was
frightened by a wind turbine built too close to a public bridleway where there
is no alternative route, is one death or injury too many. Evidence of serious
incidents will not be common because people with susceptible horses just don’t
go near turbines. Do we have to have a fatality before the concerns of horse
riders are taken seriously in our Health and Safety conscious society? The
decision makers, who probably do not have personal experience of a frightened
horse reacting to a turbine, should not be too hasty in dismissing the importance
of the concerns of horse riders, as they have done in the past.

*Rochdale UDP, Policy LT/2: Protection of Tourism
Attractions. Development proposals that would adversely affect an existing
tourist attraction will not be permitted where they would detract from its
function, appearance or setting.

6

7. Safety
of horse riders used in Planning Decisions

(i) Rochdale

In a recent decision made by Rochdale Council concerning the
erection of two 25m turbines at the side of Castle Hill Road, Birtle the Council
refused the application using the British Horse Society guidelines. The Council
stated that the recommended distance would not be achieved and that the
applicant had not demonstrated that the noise and flicker effect resulting from
the motion of the wind turbines would not adversely affect horses and the
safety of their riders using Castle Hill Road to an unacceptable degree. They
therefore decided that the development would not satisfy policy EM/14-Wind
Power Developments of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan. This
decision then went to appeal and the
development was considered by The Planning Inspectorate. The Inspector commented
that horses are known to be sensitive to turbines and can be affected by their
presence and that could lead to behaviour that would put riders at risk. The
Inspector therefore decided that the development would not satisfy EM/14(d) of
Rochdale’s Unitary Development Plan concerned with the need to avoid Health and
Safety Risks. Therefore Health and Safety is considered a valid reason to use
when making decisions concerning the siting of wind turbines. If it is true for
just two wind turbines then it must be even more valid when larger numbers of
turbines are involved, especially for turbines which are five times larger. On page 5 of the British Horse Society Advice
on Wind Turbines and Horses- Guidance for Developers and Planners it states
that “one turbine is much easier to cope with than many, the more machines, the
greater the threat.”

(ii) Somerset

In 2011 an
application for two 34.2m high wind turbines at Moorhayes Farm, Charlton
Musgrove in Somerset was made to South Somerset District Council. These
turbines would have been within 170m of a RUUP and 220m from the track at
Wincanton Racecourse. The decision on the application was taken away from the
District Council and went to The Planning Inspectorate in March 2012. The
Inspector, Mr. Andrew Pykett, said “ As the horses approach the North West
corner of the course they would be running and jumping directly in line with
the turbines at a distance of about 250m. The appellant agrees the turbines
could be a distraction in such circumstances and this could have a direct and
unacceptable consequence in Health and Safety terms.” We suggest that a similar
situation will be evident on The Mary Towneley Loop if the turbines are built.
A horse does not have to be galloping and jumping to be adversely influenced by a turbine. The Inspector went on to say
that he understood that when horses are familiar with the turbines the
possibility of an adverse reaction is lessened, but this is unlikely to apply
to racehorses which travel from afar. There will be riders from outside the
local area wishing to ride The Mary Towneley Loop. The Inspector was also
concerned that the RUUP was close to the sites of the proposed turbines. The application was dismissed, the above being
part of the argument.

7

(iii) Cambridgeshire

When
commenting on an appeal for a wind farm in Cambridgeshire, the Inspector, Mr.
Philip Major, said the following:-

“So it seems
to me that there is no ‘in principle’ reason why wind turbines should not be
sited close to routes used by horses so
long as there are opportunities for horses to become accustomed to their
prescence.” Riders from across the
UK who wish to ride the Mary Towneley Loop are not likely to have had an
‘opportunity’.

8. Safety
of riders from outside the area

If the turbines on Rooley Moor are built too close to the
bridleway any rider whose horse has not seen a turbine will be in a state of
anxiety wondering how their horse will react and this anxiety will be passed on
to the horse. This will spoil their enjoyment of the Loop and the anxiety
factor may even prevent a rider from attempting the Loop. In the BHS Wind Turbine and Horses Survey
there is reference to problems with a route passing close to wind turbines at an endurance ride. It created
a severe problem for many riders causing some to fall from their horses. All
subsequent risk assessments showed that it was too dangerous to include the
route in future rides. Reactions were extreme because endurance rides attract
horses from a wide area and many of the horses would never have seen a wind
turbine at close hand. We have a similar situation with The Mary Towneley Loop
where riders come from all parts of the country to ride. Riding through a
corridor of turbines situated close to the bridleway as we will have on Rooley
Moor Road is an unacceptable risk. Many riders will have a preconceived fear about
testing their horse’s reaction to a turbine and this will deter a significant
number of riders from attempting this National Trail.

9.
The Environmental Statement

(i) Type of horse

In Chapter 14,
section14.27 and section 14.28, of the Environmental Statement produced by
Coronation Power there is a discussion about the type of horse one should ride
on The Mary Towneley Loop suggesting that thoroughbred horses and arabs are
unsuitable because they are too high spirited. In their conclusion to the
results of the Wind Turbine and Horses Survey, The British Horse Society
remarked that “It is worrying that in many instances there were adverse
reactions to the turbines from usually quiet horses with skilled riders aboard.
Vulnerable riders such as children, the disabled and the inexperienced on quiet
horses are therefore at risk. Any turbine near a route used by horses has the
potential to increase the accident risk unacceptably.” Therefore it is not just thoroughbred horses
that react badly to wind turbines. High spirited thoroughbred horses make very
good mounts on The Mary Towneley Loop, having had personal experience of this
and a very enjoyable week’s riding, but that is because the existing turbines are
far enough away not to matter. Arab horses are widely used in endurance
competitions and an endurance rider is very likely to be one of the riders
tackling the 47 mile Mary Towneley loop.

8

(ii) Risk assessments

In section 14.27 it is remarked that riders
will have already made a safety assessment as to whether the horse is safe to
take onto the Development Area. In this statement the developer has shown that
they are aware of the danger posed by the turbines, built too close to the
bridleway. On a public right of way the developers could reduce the danger by
moving the turbines to a safer distance, eg. that recommended by the BHS. By
this statement the developer also admits that the turbines will stop some
riders from accessing this section of The Mary Towneley Loop and therefore
prevent a rider from tackling the whole ride, thus severing the Loop. We can
already ride this route safely so talk of risk assessments is not plausible.
The risk assessment should be done by the developer and plans should be
modified to keep all bridleway users
safe as they are now

(iii) Spooking horses

Twice
in this Statement, in section 14.25 and section 14.27, reference is made to
other factors such as dogs and litter in the environment that startle horses.
These are occasional hazards that riders have to deal with, they don’t happen
every day, and quite frankly how are they relevant? A wind turbine is a
permanent feature that cannot be avoided if one wishes to ride along Rooley
Moor Road if the turbines are built. In section14.25 it is stated that most
horses can be trained to accept turbines. Visiting riders will not have had the
luxury of desensitising their horses to the turbines and why should they have
to if they wish to ride a National Trail? We don’t all have the luxury of being
able to turn out our horses in a field next to turbines so they can get used to
them, and de-sensitising a horse to turbines in hand or ridden is a potentially
hazardous process that could take a long time. Riders from parts of the country
where there are no turbines would have to travel possibly hundreds of miles and
leave them for a period of time in order to desensitise their horse. This is
such an expensive option it is unlikely to be taken up. As for the photograph
of the quiet hunting scene (we could not find the photograph in the maze of
documents) mentioned in section 14.27,
in the BHS Wind Turbines and Horses Survey report there are several references
to hunting fields being sent into disarray when nearby wind turbine blades
started spinning.

(iv) Rooley Moor Road

(a)
Historical aspect

In sections 14.91
and 14.96 reference is made to alternative bridleways. Horse riders do not need
an alternative bridleway. We have a perfectly acceptable, safe bridleway with a
surface that has resisted bad erosion from horse’s hooves for centuries. Rooley
Moor Road has a long association with horses and pedestrians, having been used
as a Packhorse route at least since the 1800s. It appears on Yates’ Map of 1786
and Greenwood’s Map of Lancashire from 1818. It is part of the heritage of the locality. It
is the developers who need a different access road that will not damage the
fabric of The Cotton Famine Road or the local ecology.

9

(b)
Proposed treatment

In section 4.3, Rooley Moor Road Treatment, it
is stated that the developers intend to cover the setts with sand and then top
that with graded crushed rock and the
causeway stones are to be removed and a temporary stone surface instated. The
rough areas are also to be covered in crushed stone. No-one really knows
whether or not this treatment will protect the historic setts and horse riders
will be worried that the correct type of stone is used. If they get it wrong
the soles of the horse’s feet could be bruised.

(c) Meeting
HGVs

During the construction phase it is very
likely that a rider using Rooley Moor Road will meet an HGV or similar vehicle.
Although drivers will have been told to give way to riders, how is the rider
expected to pass the vehicle? The HGV will take up the full width of the
bridleway and on either side is either a ditch or bog. Some riders whose horses
are not traffic proof will not get by the HGV because they will probably not be
able to get their horse anywhere near the vehicle or the horse could have
bolted away from the vehicle, hopefully not into the bog! Riders use the moors
because they are usually a safe haven from HGVs.

(d)
Borrow Pits

The separation
distance between the Borrow Pit 1 and Rooley Moor Road is only 9 metres. Borrow pit
2 is close to the Alternative Bridleway on Bagden Hillocks. It is very likely
that as the Borrow Pits are so close to either bridleway, a horse may become
frightened by a heavy vehicle working in the Pit, whether or not a fence is
erected. Frightened horses can move very quickly and unpredictably and deposit
their riders on the ground. As has been suggested previously, many people ride
on the moor to keep away from HGVs and similar vehicles because their horses
are not safe when confronted by such vehicles. This will be yet another route
that will be denied to them as it is not possible to use either Rooley Moor
Road or the Alternative Bridleway without passing a Borrow Pit.

(e) Access to Rooley Moor Road

At the
entrance to Rooley Moor Road the cattle grid is to be removed and an
unspecified structure erected to keep the livestock on the moor. Surely at this
stage more details of this structure should have been given. Whatever is
erected, access to the moor for horses riders should be as easy as it is now,
with any gate used suitable to being opened whilst mounted on a horse .

10

(v) The Alternative Bridleway

The “New
Bridleway” which is, we presume, the alternative route to use whilst work is in
progress, is unsuitable .The northern stretch goes within 75m of turbine number
6. As
turbine number 6 is also only 186m from the present bridleway we have here an
unacceptable situation both during construction and when the turbines are
commissioned as neither route will be safe to ride. It is foreseeable that even
confident horses and riders would find a 125m high turbine just 75m away from
them overwhelming so more timid combinations have no chance. The section past
turbine number 6 is peat bog and cotton grass at present and therefore
impassable. It certainly would not withstand the amount of equestrian traffic
that it is expected to cope with. It also does not allow horse riders to
by-pass turbines T11 and T12 and Borrow Pit 2 is very close to this section of
the bridleway.

The southern
part of the alternative bridleway, Hey Fp121, is also unsuitable. The northern
end of this footpath does not have a hard base, being moorland in nature, and
would soon become seriously damaged with the amount of use it would be
subjected to. There are several boggy hollows the path has to pass through and
these would become impassable in periods of wet weather.

In its
present state the whole of the alternative bridleway is not up to the same
standard as the present bridleway. The alternative bridleway must be of the
same standard of surface as Rooley Moor Road and there must be a covenant for
the maintenance of the surface for at least the life of the turbines. The
Council should not be expected to cover the maintenance of this extra bridleway.
There should be construction details for a 3 metre wide alternative bridleway with
a horse friendly surface and a full account of the Environmental Impact of the
bridleway on habitats and drainage of the moor in the Environmental Statement
together with an account of a sustainable maintenance programme.

(vi) The corridor effect

As has been stated before, to get from
Waterfoot to Catley Lane Head the present Pennine Bridleway route is the only
option. In section 14.26 reference is made to the corridor effect created by
the turbines. When turbines N3 and N4 from the Peel/United Utilities
development are considered in relation to T12 and T11 there is a corridor of
550m from the corner where Rooley Moor Road veers west to the line connecting
N4 and T11 across the bridleway. Further south there is another corridor of
550m from the line connecting T7 and T6 to the line crossing the bridleway
between T2 and T3. All the turbines
mentioned are too close to the bridleway.

11

The
sensible option

In conclusion,
we would like to think that the importance and safety of this recreational
route, used by horse riders, cyclists and walkers, will not be sacrificed to
big business. The challenge of “Looping the Loop” should be available for the next
generation of horse riders so they too can experience the sense of achievement
on completion. We have enjoyed this route for 12yrs and we would
like to continue to enjoy it. In the September 2014 issue of The British Horse
magazine The Mary Towneley Loop appears on “The Bridleway Bucket List”, some of the best rides in
the UK that you must do at least once. This demonstrates just how important
this part of The Pennine Bridleway is to the equestrian world. The walkers,
cyclists and horse riders come to the moor because they seek andenjoy the beauty, wildness and
remoteness of the place. Riders transport their horses from neighbouring towns
to ride on the moor and enjoy the special atmosphere. This will be irreversibly
altered if the turbines are built. The bridleway across Scout Moor and Rooley
Moor must not be considered in isolation. It is part of an entity called The
Mary Towneley Loop and must be considered as such. If the turbines are built as
close as is planned it will compromise the integrity of the Mary Towneley Loop.
The development poses too many Health and Safety issues concerning horse riders
using the National Trail to seriously consider this application for approval. The planning documents have too many
questionable interpretations and statements, contradictions and instances of insufficient
construction details.

All we are asking is that those 8 turbines
proposed by Coronation Power that are too close to the Mary Towneley Loop are
moved away from the bridleway so it may be ridden safely and that access to the
Coronation Power site finds an alternative route that will not damage the
fabric of the moor or put horse riders at risk. If neither of these objectives
is achievable we respectfully request that the development should not be
granted permission.

Yours
sincerely

Joan Snowdon
Irene Pope

Vice Chairman

12

APPENDIX I

Data provided by Natural England

APPENDIX III PENNINE BRIDLEWAY CASH FLOW (May 2009)

Year

1999

2000

2001

2002

Total

Construction

Total expenditure

243349

205680

506251

592481

1547761

SE Claim

121675

102840

253126

296241

773882

Acquisition

0

Total expenditure

63204

54416

122924

100066

340610

SE Claim

31602

27208

61462

50033

170305

Facilities

0

Total expenditure

0

0

1938

12725

14663

SE Claim

0

0

969

6363

7332

Staff

0

Total expenditure

57010

106872

112007

70849

346738

SE Claim

28505

53436

56004

35425

173370

0

Annual expenditure

363563

366968

743120

776121

2249772

Annual SE claim

181782

183484

371560

388061

1124887

The majority, but not all, of
the total spend over these four years was for The Mary Towneley Loop